Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

A New Counterterrorism Strategy: Feminism

By Barbara Ehrenreich, AlterNet. Posted May 10, 2005.


A sustained and serious effort to gain human rights for women worldwide could be the start of a brand new approach to fighting terrorism.
Advertisement

Editor's Note: This is an excerpt from 'Stop the Next War Now: Effective Responses to Violence and Terrorism (Inner Ocean),' edited by Code Pink co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans.

I've been reading Bin Ladin--Carmen, that is, not her brother-in-law Osama (she spells the last name with an "i")--and I'd like to present a brand-new approach to terrorism, one that turns out to be more consistent with traditional American values. First, let's stop calling the enemy "terrorism," which is like saying we're fighting "bombings." Terrorism is only a method; the enemy is an extremist Islamic insurgency whose appeal lies in its claim to represent the Muslim masses against a bullying superpower.

But as Carmen Bin Ladin urgently reminds us in her book Inside the Kingdom, one glaring moral flaw of this insurgency, quite apart from its methods, is that it aims to push one-half of those masses down to a status only slightly above that of domestic animals. While Osama was getting pumped up for jihad, Carmen was getting up her nerve to walk across the street in a residential neighborhood in Jeddah--fully-veiled but unescorted by a male, something that is an illegal act for a woman in Saudi Arabia. Eventually she left the kingdom and got a divorce because she didn't want her daughters to grow up in a place where women are kept "locked in and breeding."

So here in one word is my new counterterrorism strategy: feminism. Or, if that's too incendiary, try the phrase "human rights for women." I don't mean just a few opportunistic references to women, like those that accompanied the war on the Taliban and were quietly dropped by the Bush administration when that war was abandoned and Afghan women were locked back into their burqas. I'm talking about a sustained and serious effort.

We should announce plans to pour U.S. tax dollars into girls' education in places like Pakistan, where the high-end estimate for female literacy is 26 percent, and into scholarships for women seeking higher education in nations that typically discourage it. (Secular education for the boys wouldn't hurt, either.) Expand the grounds for asylum to all women fleeing gender totalitarianism, wherever it springs up. Reverse the Bush policies on global family planning, which condemn seventy-eight thousand women to death each year in makeshift abortions. Lead the global battle against the trafficking of women. I'm not expecting such measures alone to incite a feminist insurgency within the Islamist one. Carmen Bin Ladin found her rich Saudi sisters-in-law sunk in bovine passivity, and some of the more spirited young women in the Muslim world have been adopting the head scarf as a gesture of defiance toward American imperialism. We're going to need a thorough foreign policy makeover--from Afghanistan to Israel--before we have the credibility to stand up for anyone's human rights. You can't play the gender card with dirty hands.

If this country were to embrace a feminist strategy against the insurgency, we'd have to start by addressing our own dismal record on women's rights. We'd be pushing for the immediate ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has been ratified by 169 countries but remains stalled in the U.S. Senate. We'd be threatening to break off relations with Saudi Arabia until it acknowledged the humanity of women. And we'd be thundering about the shortage of women in the U.S. Senate and House, an internationally embarrassing 14 percent. We should be aiming for a representation of at least 25 percent, the same target the Transitional Administrative Law of Iraq has set for the federal assembly there.

If we want to beat Osama, we've got to start by listening to Carmen.

Digg!

Barbara Ehrenreich has written more than ten books, including Blood Rites and Nickel and Dimed. She is a frequent contributor to Esquire, Harper's Magazine, Mirabella, The Nation, the New Republic, The New York Times, and Time. Ehrenreich became involved in political activism during the Vietnam War and has been an activist and feminist ever since.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
goldie
Posted by: goldie on May 10, 2005 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The boys aren't going to give up their power that easily. Until wimmin gain the strength to confront them not only en masse, but with total unanimity, we won't get what we want and deserve.
The boys are also not going to give up their control very easily either for if they do, then they can't "play" with their expensive war toys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not all boys are that bad... Posted by: gazevans
» RE: not all boys are that bad... Posted by: MausMasher
» RE: goldie Posted by: kc4choice
» RE: goldie Posted by: sd333trop
the missionary position
Posted by: verite on May 10, 2005 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sounds laudible..
"We should announce plans to pour U.S. tax dollars into girls' education in places like Pakistan, where the high-end estimate for female literacy is 26 percent.."
but the missionary position.. the largesse.. always seems tainted by a supremacist and often imperialist outlook.
After all, examine the history here... that US tax dollars poured in to create the religious schools.. the Taleban.. $4 billion I think from memory. The covert aim of the US arms cartel was to fuel the fight against the current bogeyman ... COMMUNISM...
It may be that these womens' education can never be bought, like the Brazilians they may say.. "Non" to the dirty US dollars..
How, after all, are these "tax dollars" generated. A lot is dirty money generated by the arms/oil cartel itself, selling weapons to Saudi tops the list, DU genocide in Iraq cames a close second. These tax dollar payers voted in a Carlyle 7UP DU president, admittedly with a very limited FPTP system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Friends of the Prez?
Posted by: nosylae on May 10, 2005 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Pres Bush and company are really close friends with the Saudis it shows you something about the current admin's view on women - not much. The US has too much vested in Saudi Arabia to care about half its citizens' human rights. The Saudi royals have something like 5% of the US GDP invested there. If they were to pull all that money out, the US would go into a severe recession/depression and that in turn would ruin the global economy. So girls, do your duty to your countries and keep quiet, stay pregnant (no abortions for you!) and get back in that kitchen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's what some have been saying all along
Posted by: craig on May 10, 2005 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shirin Ebadi, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner from Iran, as well as other feminist human rights activists from the region, such as Yanar Mohammed from Iraq, brought up the same points apparently offered in Barbara Ehrenreich's book, but on a broader scale. They spoke recently at Westfield State College in Massachusetts as part of a conference sponsored by the Global Women's History Project, an organization that has long made the connection between feminism and peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminism the Anti Terror Tool
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on May 10, 2005 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbara Ehrenreich starts with the proposition that people might find the term "feminism*" too incendiary ... but that we could still use "human rights for women" as a way of undermining support for terrorists' activities.

Well, what the hell! Everyone else uses The War on Terror to advance their agendas, why not us Feminists? Instead of a advancing egalistarian ideals for their own sake (knowing that THAT struggle is over and lost) let us offer our beliefs as a way to open a second front against Islam -- and maybe the Administration will reconsider its positions on Welfare, Child Services and AIDS education.

And it's not as if those dumb A-Rabs would ever see a fundimental change in sex roles as a threat to their way of life.Just look at the way the United States embraced our own Equal Rights Amendment. Look at the unbroken record of US support for women's empowerment and reproductive choice at home and abroad.

The Moslem politicians certainly will.

*Feminism is a political philosophy stating that a women should possess the same rights, protections and opportunities in a society that her male siblings enjoy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Feminism the Anti Terror Tool Posted by: sarahenany
Men behaving badly
Posted by: Talon on May 10, 2005 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men have been screwing up for ages! It's about time women put an end to this tyranny. Male domination, worldwide, has been very antihumanistic, and needs be altered. In the US, we need a woman president; the good ole boys club has dominated there for way too long. It is very much time for women to lead, to swing the balance of power for the good of the world. Women, just say no to male dominance!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Men behaving badly Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
» RE: Men behaving badly Posted by: KLW
7012hedges
Posted by: 7012hedges on May 10, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that WOman, a human species, is strong and can bring about the change that is needed to change the cruel controlling acts of governments world wide and the other huMAN species.

A INTELLECTUAL SELF-DEFENSE THOUGHT is a powerful force when offered in kindness. So, my humble effort to stop crimes against family rights, women and children is to follow.

I have sent the below message via email with a overwhelming support in return. I am humbled in it's observation.

Please, take just 60 seconds daily in silence to offer blessings and foregiveness to those that are the abusers of Family Rights, Women and Children and those governments that promote these crimes. The crimes of abuse against Women and Children occur every minute out of every 24 hours in this physical world.

Together in unified intellectural self-defense thought we can make a difference and change.

1. Simply sit in silence daily and offer blessings and forgiveness to those that abuse Family Rights, Women and Children. Offer blessings and forgiveness. The more you extend love -– even to those you feel have harmed you and others in some way—the closer you come to being love, and it’s in this “beingness of love” that our universal source intention is reached.

2.Then pass this message forward to other people. Now you have a multitude of people in the unified field offering blessings and forgiveness to those that are abusers.
Example:
Washington D.C. is the crime capital of the world. Keep in mind that Washington D.C. is not apart of the United States of America. It is a separate federal corporate entity. A study was conducted with the cooperation of the Washington D.C. Police Department in which 400 individuals sit in silence each day for 30 days expressing their energy out to the unified field that crime would be reduced in Washington D.C. The police chief reported a 25% reduction of crime after the study.

Daily silent presence can make a change in the crimes against Woman and Children, and even governments that desire more laws to govern Woman and Children.. Knowing that our silent presencewith this thought will have the desired effect materialize

I include the meaning of the word ""Namaste" and my favorite story of Carl's Garden in my communications.
Nasmaste

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 7012hedges Posted by: KLW
» RE: 7012hedges Posted by: KLW
Barbara is RIGHT!!
Posted by: janvdb on May 10, 2005 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbara Ehrenreich is, once again, dead on CO-O-ORECT.

There is one more major intervening variable which she doesn't address and I think it may be the most important one -- empowering women causes high birth rates to fall. That correlation is unassailable. That enables the economy to keep up with the rate of labor market entry of young workers; that allows unemployment to fall or at least stabilize; and that relieves the POVERTY which feeds frustration and terrorism.

There has been a lot of scholarship aimed at trying to destroy that common-sense chain of events; I won't go into all the details here but I've read a lot of it and I find it totally unconvincing.

The dominant paradigm for development economics -- that researched and practiced by the World Bank -- holds that the best place to put development dollars is into educating girls and women's health care.

And most developed, prosperous countries do not create legions of car-bombers. A few, yes, like the Aum Shin Rikyo sect in Japan and the Red Army in the 70s, but more people have died in one day in any given African country than ever died due to those rich-country anomalies.

Prosperity for all is the key to ending terrorism (not growth for the rich as in most Latin American countries) and women's rights and women's health care is the key to global prosperity and stability.

We need to get behind Barbara's idea here and push it as much as possible -- get rid of the Global Gag Rule, provide women's health care (including abortions) for free to all populations whose governments will give us access, provide well-baby care so families will be happy to stop with fewer offspring, and educate girls (and boys, too but the girls are the ones being most cheated now).

This idea has legs. It is important.

Feminism and female empowerment is the KEY to ending terrorism. Of course, Bush and Co haven't got a clue and that is why they are aggressively making the problem worse each and every day, all the while wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and spreading destruction and death across the landscape.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barbara is RIGHT!! Posted by: WomanforPeace/Sanity
Women and the Right to Vote
Posted by: Professor Bates on May 10, 2005 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before American men can vote they must register with the Selective Service to enable the country to draft them in time of war. Women register with no one. They serve no one. American women have always been non-citizens in the sense that they contribute nothing to country...except overpopulation and phony sexual abuse charges!
Basically, women just live here - much like my dog Gus...but he doesn't vote!

Ironically, women won the right to vote during World War One while the men were fighting and dying for the country.
Do American Women EARN the Right to Vote?
Actually, women have about the same civic responsibilities as children but MORE rights and privileges than adult males who must earn them.
Until women are REQUIRED to serve the country like men, they should be treated like the selfish and irresponsible children they are and denied the vote and certainly denied political office. Why should men (who earn their place in society) be governed by parasitic, freeloading women who contribute nothing and sacrifice nothing for our country?

Professor Bates

Women at the time had nothing better to do so they protested until male legislators caved-in and gave them the vote with no concomitant responsibilities. No service to the country...nuthin'.
Rights without responsibilities - that pretty much sums up the lives of freeloading women in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» An Honest Man Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Yeah, this guy is a freak Posted by: janvdb
» RE: Yeah, this guy is a freak Posted by: OutragedMom
» Please don't feed the trolls! Posted by: wetcortex
» RE: Women and the Right to Vote Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Why American Female 'Soldiers' Aren't Dying in Iraq
Posted by: Professor Bates on May 10, 2005 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most Americans are aware that approximately 15% of our military is now comprised of female 'soldiers'. They are also aware that, as of this writing, about 1400 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Ever wonder how many of those 1400 dead are female soldiers? You sure as hell won't hear it in the media! They're busy covering up the fact that only a handful of female 'soldiers' have been killed in Iraq, and those were the result of freak accidents.
Some might ask WHY no females are being killed or injured. Are they bulletproof? Maybe they're extreemly lucky. No to both of these theories. Women in our military are almost never put into life threatening roles. In other words, they only receive safe assignments - jobs no more dangerous than any civilian occupation here in the States...and yet they're honored right along with the men...as if they're risking their lives too!

Female 'soldiers' are vehicle and aircraft mechanics, clerks, cooks, warehouse workers, computer operators, drivers (as long as they don't have to drive anywhere dangerous!), etc.
Women in our military are only given safe, behind the lines jobs. It stands to reason that, with women sucking up all the safe, high-tech jobs, there will be fewer jobs in these categories left for males.
Today a male soldier's options are extreemly limited due to the fact that women are automatically assigned safe duty.

Incidentally, training for high-tech jobs is more likely to yield a salable career after the military than combat training. In other words, the advantages women enjoy in our military follow them into civilian life.

If this weren't enough, ...female 'soldiers' in comfortable, non-life threatening positions receive the same pay as male soldiers who are risking their lives - and often MORE depending on their rank!!

President Bush (by eliminating combat pay in Iraq) and our homegrown American FEMINISM has seen to that. Another example of equal pay for unequal work...but this time a SHAMEFUL example during a war.
Email your congressman now about the inequities in our military. Contact your representative and tell him that cowardly, malingering women should not be receiving the same salary as male soldiers assigned to combat zones in Iraq.

Report Gender Discrimination to Congress!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why American Female 'Soldiers' Aren't Dying in Iraq Posted by: ann.hochhausen@us.army.mil
What Conceit!
Posted by: charlotte on May 10, 2005 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"save the poor, brown-skinned women from the barbaric, brown-skinned men!"

what conceit! what Western arrogance!!

SHAME ON YOU :-/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Conceit! Posted by: nickptar
» RE: What Conceit! Posted by: nabra
» RE: What Conceit! Posted by: charlotte
» RE: What Conceit! Posted by: nickptar
» Thanks. Posted by: nickptar
Internet Philosopher
Posted by: InternetPhilosopher on May 10, 2005 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please feel free to visit my website.

I have always supported equality of the sexes. I am for equal pay for equal work. I am for women having an equal voice in government, both in voting and in holding elected office. I don't believe that gender should be an issue in voting decisions, either for or against. I am in favor of programs specifically intended to bring parity to women in education all over the world.

But what I am confused about is why no one seems to be concerned about the travesty that is called domestic relations in the US. Isn't it about time time to give men equality in the courts where their most important life choices are decided for them, usually against their wishes. As a computer programmer, I don't see women discriminated against in the workplace. I have worked for and with both men and women. I will not attempt to deny that this discimination exists, but I haven't seen it in the technology workplace. In my university experience, I never saw women discriminated against in the clssroom. I will not deny it's existence, but I haven't seen it in the university. But every time I see a man go to court to protect his parental rights, I see the courts consistently take first the father's children and then his money and give it to the mother.

I don't believe in gender injustice whether it is targeted against women or against men. How about the rest of you, men AND women. Are you prepared to give fathers custody of your children and to pay these fathers to stay home and care for your children? When will there be equality for men involved in family issues?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Internet Philosopher Posted by: OutragedMom
» Respectfully unsympathetic to your outrage! Posted by: InternetPhilosopher
» RE: espectfully unsympathetic to your outrage! Posted by: InternetPhilosopher
S Bader
Posted by: SBader on May 10, 2005 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Barbara, In your opening paragraph you come to say "... the enemy is an extremist Islamic insurgency whose appeal lies in its claim to represent the Muslim masses against a bullying superpower. " Surely this "claim" and the "appeal" and the question of a "bullying superpower", have some part in a proposed solution, with all due respect to the suffering ladies of Hijaz. For example would a moderate, as opposed to extreme, insurgency be of any value, should a "bullying superpower" exist? etc. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Absolutely
Posted by: wetcortex on May 11, 2005 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the money.

The highest moral goals to which we can aspire, either individually or collectively, are justice and compassion. Societies which deny justice for one half of the human population have made little progress toward those goals.

Men who do not treat women with justice, and as equals, cripple themselves morally. They hinder their own moral development as long as they allow the habits of injustice to persist. It is not surprising that moral weakness manifests itself frequently so long as societies are dominated by one gender. Corrupt politics, short-sighted, foolish, and counter-productive policies are guaranteed when leadership clings to self-delusion and prejudice.

Yet, it is extremely difficult to resist the inertial drag of one's own culture. Those who violate cultural norms can expect to pay heavy penalities of one kind or another.

The best and quickest way out of the morass is by educating girls. Educated girls will become educated mothers. They will impart some of this education to, and foster superior intellectual habits in their children. Women who respect themselves will raise boys who respect women. Men and women raised to respect gender equality will change the cultural norms. They will free men to develop as they should.

I will count the U.S. as having achieved gender parity only when 50% of both our legislators and judiciary are women. There is no just reason why it should be otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eyes wide open
Posted by: sd333trop on May 11, 2005 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who ever scammed you into thinking that there is any "War on Terrorism?" Certainly peace-seeking people everywhere do not wish to be ruled by fear and violence, but the current military adventures being acted out by the U.S. have nothing to do with combating terror, and everything to do with controlling all the world's resources to enrich the mega-corporations and their financial backers. Our troops are simply enforcers for the will of the Controllers. The U.S. has a sordid history of using terrorist tactics to further its corporate interests, and is not about to give up now. Has there ever been a more heinous form of terrorism than the fire-bombings on civilian targets carried out by the Allies during WWII, or the "shock and awe" preceding the current occupation of Iraq?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eyes wide open Posted by: flame
WomanforPeace/Sanity
Posted by: WomanforPeace/Sanity on May 12, 2005 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it was Maya Angelou who said "Terrorism will cease to exist when Muslim mothers and fathers learn to love their children more than they hate their enemies." This has stayed with me because I believe it is absolutely true! We need a "kinder, gentler" approach to dealing with the global community, but we will not see that under this administration! I think that I am MOST disappointed in Condi Rice, because she is a woman, to see her stand by the hard-line, no diplomacy, no peace negotiations tactics of her testosterone fueled cohorts in this administration. As a black woman, she has experienced discrimination on more than one front and should have taken Martin Luther King"s advice and espoused peaceful means to a settlement with the Middle East. Women can and are making a difference, but do not yet have the power to change this nation's course! I believe Condi could have made a difference, but she copped out. Of course, in her defense, I'm sure that she would have been promptly fired if she had tried! So sad!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fighting terrorism with feminism?
Posted by: aida1200 on May 12, 2005 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RIGHT ON, SISTER!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Taxdollars
Posted by: nevermind on May 12, 2005 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see why we should pour US taxdollars anywhere but in the US... except to clean up the mess this government made in Iraq, but otherwise I think it's time to fix our country. It's a big mess. People should be able to keep more of their money and support programs they like on their own accord. How long do you think things like the drug war would last if it were left up to private funding?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

daniel chaykowsky
Posted by: daniel on May 14, 2005 8:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Barbara Ehrenreich's excerpt from her book and what she had to say about "defeating Bin Laden:

As far as I am concerned you simply don't get it if you think Bin Laden is your enemy! I do not give a damn about his agenda, all I know is IF (that is to say if there is indeed a network which he heads which more than a few people sincerely doubt) he is killing Nazi Americans and their apologists I say more power to him!!! You liberals want to worry more about your abstract bourgeois feminist crap you learned in college while workers all over the world (men and women) need first to free themselves from the tyrrany of transnational corporations and their fascist political stooges and military machines. I have learned from hard days in union battles in Western Pa. and living in virtual poverty since the day I was born that in fact it is women who are the leaders in our families and if things ever got straight THEN they could more than take care of whatever discrimination remained. And I would say the same would go for Muslim women. First beat the living hell out of America and take whatever help you can get; then worry about defeating the Bin Ladens of the world. Try to play the American game as they are now in Iraq and gain "women's rights" and if you are a woman you will not only end up a slave of capitalism but more than likely dead from work exhaustion by the time you are 25.

Your emphasis on women's rights and calling Bin Laden your enemy is only an evasion of what the hell is really going on in this world. At least they are willing to risk their lives to kill these monsters that are running this country and the world. And if you don't realize it you will someday, if you have anything on the ball, that only violence is going to bring down the American Empire which is steadily enslaving all the workers of the world and destroying life itself on this planet.

I have an idea. Instead of writing your 11th book, put your ass on the line and go try to organize workers, try to stop the Wal-Marts of the world or, better, try to organize a war crimes tribunal to put Bush and all his Nazi chums in prison once they are out of office--indeed if they don't seize power and stay there!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: daniel chaykowsky Posted by: zorro
UNITED NATIONS AGAINST aMERICA
Posted by: zorro on May 15, 2005 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US has consistently rejected every UN mandate since its conception. America doesnt want to eliminate terrorism--it wants to foster it--Americans are being decieved. American infrastructure is centered on the war machine--an unfortunate fact. The world and the UNIted Nations would be better off if they reform by eliminating America from the table--America would have to conform and show--god forbid-a little humility. HOwever, THe UN should not let them back on for at least a period of fifty penatent years--so the world can start improving in that time, without constant American stalling. BUrn the flag! America is the problem--American government is the enemy. The world would be soon at peace and equal if not for American despotism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Idea But Flawed
Posted by: faultroy on May 15, 2005 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Utilizing Feminism as a tool to undermine terorism will certainly work--in the mind of this undereducated sophmoric writer.
Why not, as an avowed Feminist, anything with the word
"feminine" in it has got to be good!
Below are logical reasons why it is not plausible...
1) Women are just as or almost as likely to support these
bombings as men. There is no evidence that gender is the defining issue in these attacks.
2) Ignorantly, the author assumes that there are no educated middle eastern women and that all of them mill around the feedlot like pigs, cattle and goats perpetually feritilized and in constant pregnancy. Historically the most fervent advocates of Nazism were women.
3) Feminism is not looked at as glowingly nor as positively
in the mideast as it is in the USA. Middle Easterners look at
our incidents of divorce, the breakdown of the family, teen pregnancy, rape, unwed mothers, and our casual morays of Sexuality, our disrespect of the aged with horror. There is no evidence showing they want to be anything like us.
4) Assuming that women would like more equality and freedom, we have no idea what our billions in social investment --in addition to the hundreds of billions in military investment will bring us in the short and long term.
5) The obvious blatant sexual discrimination on the part of the author is poignantly demonstrated in her comment that we also need to eliminate gender bias here in the USA by citing the dismal statistic that only 14 percent of US legislators are women. What she neglects to mention is that
there are more women voters than men--so what is her point? That women are discriminating against women?
Gender Bias works both ways (not now, but there are movements to make it truly more egalitarian) currently there are more women in law school and medical school than men.
Ultimately these laws will backfire and eliminate opportunities for women because of social pressures for statistical equality. It remains to be seen how American Women will react to this new set gender dynamics.
Imagine if women' sports were required by government
law to be statisically egalitarian. We would have no women jocks since it has alredy been amply demonstrated that women cannot compete physically with men on equal footing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Idea But Flawed Posted by: zorro
» RE: Great Idea But Flawed Posted by: AdamSelene40
How about feminism at home?
Posted by: hagwind on May 16, 2005 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about revitalizing grass-roots feminism here in the U.S. before, or at least while, trying to export it? Remember consciousness raising (CR)? I can't think of a better way to get neighbors and co-workers talking to each other about something other than the weather or what they saw on TV or read in the newspaper. Or to break down the less-than-useful categories of red/blue (states) and right/left (wings). Or to generate practical, reality-based theory outside of the academy and the big city.

One problem, I think, is that we've let powerful white guys define what terrorism is: terrorism is when they're scared. Most of the rest of us have been dealing with terrorism from an early age, whether we called it that or not. We could teach the powerful white guys a few things about courage and getting on with our lives. Not to mention -- hey, if profiling really is a valid anti-terrorist strategy, why isn't Homeland Security detaining and questioning people in category Male? or category White? (Relax, righteous liberals: I'm not suggesting this should be public policy! I don't think . . . Not yet, anyway . . .)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On a womans movement
Posted by: whatever on May 16, 2005 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to rant, but...you know, I'd love to jump on a feminist bandwagon. But it seems, to me, that we're sleeping. While we sit each morning piling junk on our faces, wearing unhealthy shoes with clothes meant to be tight and revealing, pounding our little heals on the pavement, fearing those older years when we won't be "pretty" anymore, though we're obviously wiser (aren't we?)...while we discount our minds completely and busily play silly dress up games, we'll never, NEVER win. Female culture in our nation that I see continues to accept any and all male ideals of what we should be, and we will never win that game. Period.

And while we allow them to accord us that "other" status of the female kind, their wars and their "issues" will always be more "important". My fellow mothers and wives, don't you care about the world? There's no one awake behind those pretty, pretty eyes.

Nothing will change for us if we continue jumping through male circus hoops. The women that stopped prohibition and the women that won us the right to vote weren't "pretty" and they didn't play by the social rules. But I don't see much of that attitude anymore.

And these people? These people are monsters and rapists, this Admin of ours. That's what we're up against. Brutal rapists. Without a lot of publicity to protect it, a womans movement would be in real danger, real physical danger. That's all I'm left with on this. Can we deny it? These people are, really are, monsters.


According to Davis, Hager's public moralizing on sexual matters clashed with his deplorable treatment of her during their marriage. Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent. Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible."

Not once during the uproar over Hager's FDA appointment did any reporter solicit the opinion of the woman now known as Linda Davis


Really. They are monsters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blame, blame, blame
Posted by: KLW on May 18, 2005 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blame, blame, blame, we're all guilty. Take your family life, magnify it to an international (or even national) level and then use your imagination. What kind of world would that be? (for real, this only works if your honest)...Very scary... Let's ALL repent and keep on doing it. (Repenting is like going to the bathroom. We all need to do it every day, or ...well, we won't go there).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]